IN BRIEF

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court handed down two significant rulings that both upheld clear, constitutionally and statutorily defined powers and rights. On Wednesday, it issued a ruling on another First Amendment case. However, the disturbing fact was that all three decisions were determined by the narrowest of margins, the 5-4 split. This demonstrates just how fundamentally divided the highest court in the land is when it comes to viewing Rule of Law and the Constitution. And how important election results can be.

In Trump v. Hawaii, the Court upheld President Donald Trump’s statutory authority under 8 U.S.C. §1182(f) to enforce his “travel ban” on immigrants from certain countries. That this explicitly delineated authority was even in question, and that it rose all the way up to the Supreme Court to enforce, speaks volumes as to the state of the nation’s judiciary. It was obvious that Trump had the statutory authority, irrespective of the merits of his decision. But judicial despots at every level insisted that they could divine Trump’s supposedly racist and anti-Muslim intent, ruling on that basis instead of what the law actually says.

Likewise, in NIFLA v. Becerra, the Court ruled in favor of free speech protections and against state-compelled speech by striking down California’s Reproductive FACT Act, which mandated that any women’s health clinic — including those dedicated to pro-life services — provide information on abortion services. Clearly, the law targeted pro-life organizations, compelling them to advise in favor of the very issue they exist to oppose. Justice Clarence Thomas noted that the Constitution recognizes no such dubious category of “professional speech” that supposedly “[gives] the States unfettered power to reduce a group’s First Amendment rights by simply imposing a licensing requirement.” And Justice Anthony Kennedy pointedly observed that the FACT Act was inherently discriminatory and “a paradigmatic example of the serious threat presented when government seeks to impose its own message in place of individual speech, thought, and expression.”

The third case likewise involved compelled speech — that of public employees subject to forced union dues, or “fair share” fees to support collective bargaining and other union activities. “This procedure violates the First Amendment and cannot continue,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. “Neither an agency fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted from a nonmember’s wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay.” The ruling is a big loss for Big Labor.

Collectively, the most concerning aspect of these rulings is the Court’s 5-4 split. All three decisions would have gone the other way if Merrick Garland rather than Neil Gorsuch had been sitting on the bench. As for Kennedy, still no word on his rumored retirement, but now — with Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell still at the helm — would be a great time.

The latest evidence of this seismic shift was Tuesday’s primary defeat of the number four House Democrat, Joe Crowley. On Monday, the New York Democrat who’d been in Congress since 1999 was the heir-apparent to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. By Tuesday night, he was conceding a 57-42 defeat to a Millennial socialist he’d out fundraised 10-1. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old political activist, will likely represent part of the Bronx and Queens. After all, how likely is that district to elect a Republican?

Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America and is backed by Bernie Sanders’ group Our Revolution. “What we need to do,” she says, “is be bold enough and courageous enough to choose leadership that takes no corporate money and advances health care, education, and housing for all.” Eliminating the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency is also on her agenda. When even the leftist rag Washington Post — owned by socialist billionaire Jeff Bezos — declares her win a big loss for Democrats, that’s saying something.

Two other notable election tidbits:

First, Bradley “Chelsea” Manning lost his bid to defeat Sen. Ben Cardin in the Maryland primary. Manning’s pitiful attempt to keep his 15 minutes of fame alive came not because he’s a traitor against his country but because he’s a poster child for the transgender movement.

Second, Trump was a big winner. Soon after helping defeat South Carolina Rep. Mark Sanford with an election day tweet on June 12, Trump-backed Henry McMaster, the Palmetto State’s governor, fended off a runoff challenge from John Warren. And in Utah, Mitt Romney — yes, the same Romney who denounced Trump as a “phony” and “fraud” in 2016 — won the Senate primary with Trump’s backing. Romney will face off against Democrat Jenny Wilson for retiring Sen. Orrin Hatch’s seat in November, and that election will likely be in part about Trump. The president, Romney now says, “has exceeded my expectations.”

FEATURED ANALYSIS

In the movie classic “The Princess Bride,” the hero, Wesley, is captured and forced into servitude by the Dread Pirate Roberts, only to assume the role of Roberts when the actual Dread Pirate Roberts decides to retire.

Roberts/Wesley discovers a plot to kill his beloved by the prince who will marry her, and sets out to find and defeat the criminal band hired to do the killing. After defeating the giant brute and the master swordsman, Wesley then engages in a battle of wits with Vizzini, the genius behind the plan. Wesley pours two glasses of wine, poisons one with iocane powder, and leaves the genius to use his deductive reasoning to determine “who is right, and who is dead.”

After the genius makes his decision and they both drink, Wesley reveals that both glasses were poisoned; Wesley has actually spent years taking small doses of iocane powder in order to build up an immunity.

Thus it is with Donald Trump. The media, by spending the better part of the last two years in a state of perpetual outrage at Trump, have unwittingly immunized Trump from their hysterical criticism. Their Outrage Meter is eternally pegged at 100, unchanged whether screaming about Trump’s immigration policies or his latest tweet. No matter what he says or does, it is officially The Worst Thing Ever™.

But sane, normal people can’t sustain that level of interest, much less outrage. It becomes a tsunami of whining and accusations that regular Americans just tune out. So, ironically, in a desperate attempt to destroy Trump, leftists have immunized him from their attacks.

Of course, their perpetual outrage is not just a result of their hatred of Trump. It’s calculated to increase profits — the greedy capitalist pigs!

A recent report revealed The New York Times, the bible of the Left, has done quite well as the anointed mouthpiece for anti-Trumpers. Since Election Day 2016, the NYT has seen its stock value skyrocket 141% (netting its largest shareholder, Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim Helu, a cool $423 million in profits).

Late-night comedian Stephen Colbert struggled in the ratings before he repackaged himself as a vicious (and often vile) anti-Trumper, with a nightly onslaught of criticism and mockery of the president. And without Trump’s tweeting criticism of them, poor CNN, which recently dropped below Nickelodeon and HGTV in cable ratings, may be lost from the American consciousness altogether.

It seems that CBS Chairman Les Moonves was half right when, in 2016, he said that Donald Trump’s candidacy “may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.” The greedy One Percenter continued, “The money’s rolling in and this is fun. … It’s a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going.”

One wonders if the Leftmedia appreciates the irony that the president they now seek to take down was made possible by the estimated $2 billion in free media coverage they gave him during the primaries (calculating that Trump was the weakest Republican candidate).

However, there is growing evidence that the constant barrage of vitriol directed at Trump by the press is focusing the intensity of his detractors, but it is not expanding the number of critics. In fact, not only is the criticism not hurting Trump, it may actually be helping him.

According to the Real Clear Politics polling aggregate, in recent months Trump’s approval rating on the economy has risen to 51% (higher than Barack Obama ever achieved), with just 36% disapproving, and his overall approval rating has risen to 41%, with a 10-point drop in his negative ratings. This is even after the non-stop coverage of the border situation of some children being separated from their illegal alien parents, and the press depicting Trump as cruel and heartless. Surprisingly, Trump’s handling of that situation had little effect at all on the polls either way.

It almost seems the opposite of Obama, whose personal likability was high with the American public while his policies were frowned upon. Many Americans may not like Trump’s tweeting or his street-fighter style, but they sure do like the prosperity his policies are bringing.

Paradoxically, the more the media attacks Trump, the less credibility it has with the public. In 2016, more Americans believed media bias was a problem than big campaign contributions. That was before the 24/7 Trump-bashing began in earnest, and that percentage is likely higher now as Americans become more and more numb to the “Pollaganda Effect” (agenda-driven polling masquerading as news).

There are signs that the Democrats are getting worried, and rightfully so. Their endless attacks on President Trump are failing. An astute observer will notice that Democrats no longer talk of impeachment, and the Russia investigation has yielded little of substance other than exposing a coordinated effort by senior FBI officials under Obama to sabotage Trump.

November is a long way away, and anything can happen between now and then (like Trump’s plan for tariffs undermining his pro-growth policies). But for now, that predicted Blue Wave is looking less like a tsunami and more like a leaky faucet.

And the biased, anti-Trump media deserve at least some of the credit for that.

OPINION IN BRIEF

Bill Wager: “If you thought elections didn’t matter, I give you the Supreme Court ruling [yesterday] on the so-called Trump travel ban. I found it very scary — not because I disagree with the outcome (I’m thrilled with the outcome) but because the ruling wasn’t 9-0. … Despite the fact that the most populous Muslim countries were not included in the order, the plaintiffs still tried to characterize the order as a ‘Muslim ban’ and raise the issue of religious discrimination. Totally absurd, but a federal district court bought it, and the case ultimately wound up with the Supremes. … The fact that four Supremes bought the thought-police argument over the actual document is truly scary. Consider the implications if taken literally. No contract would be valid if one of the parties could argue that what Trump was thinking when he agreed to the deal outweighed the written contract. And yet that’s the theory the minority relied upon. The majority went out of its way to note that the ruling had nothing to do with the wisdom of the ‘ban’; the president is authorized by the Constitution to do it, and that’s that. The Left is latching onto this aspect to claim that the ban remains invalid, but that is as silly as those who support the ruling trying to claim that the Supremes are in favor of the ban. The Court did what it is supposed to — interpret the Constitution. Period. And the fact that four of them could find it acceptable to inject the mindset of the author into their ruling is truly stunning. Everyone should remember that in November every four years.”

SHORT CUTS

Upright: “As long as I am President, I will defend the sovereignty, safety, and security of the American People, and fight for an immigration system that serves the national interests of the United States and its citizens. Our country will always be safe, secure, and protected on my watch.” —Donald Trump

Friendly fire: “Dear liberals, you won’t beat Trump by banning his staff from restaurants, threatening his son with pedophiles, abusing his wife or harassing his Cabinet off the streets — you’ll just get him re-elected.” —Piers Morgan

Non Compos Mentis: “I never in a million years thought I would sit here or anywhere and say this, but the difference now between Venezuela and Cuba and the United States is this: Venezuela and Cuba are the countries without internment camps for babies and toddlers.” —MSNBC’s Steve Schmidt

Braying Jackass: “[Neil] Gorsuch really should not be on the Supreme Court. He may be there, but he’s not there properly. … Gorsuch has just done what his paymasters sent him there to do. It’s a shame.” —Rep. Keith Ellison

You mad bro? “The rhythm of history, of American history, tells us that eventually, the American people in their great mass will tire of [Donald Trump] and come to realize that he threatens what is essentially America, which is our values. You’re starting to see a little of that with the treatment of children at the border, but if history is a guide, and I believe it is, the American people will tire of the show, and come to see that whatever trade they convinced themselves was worth it to elect such a person, it isn’t in the long run worth it to trade our values for the rhetoric, the promises of a particular person like that.” —James Comey

Village Idiots: “Did I ever tell ya about when Harvey Weinstein told me to make sure I shook his hand at a charity event, so I stopped in the mens room and pissed all over my hand, then went straight up to him on the receiving line? I think about that every time lil donnie [Donald Trump] opens up his KFC.” —actor Ron Perlman

And last… “The comparison between current day illegal immigrants and European settlers is really stupid. The settlers voyaged to an unknown world and built a civilization from scratch. Illegals hop across a border into an established and advanced nation and immediately reap its benefits.” —Matt Walsh

Join our editors and staff in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families. We also humbly ask prayer for your Patriot team, that our mission would seed and encourage the spirit of Liberty in the hearts and minds of our countrymen.

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis

Nate Jackson, Managing Editor
Mark Alexander, Publisher

Support The Patriot Fund

Extend Liberty to the Next Generation

The Patriot Post is sustained solely by your support for The Patriot Fund. Our mission and operation budgets are not subsidized by any political or special interest groups, and to protect our editorial integrity, we don't accept advertising. Thank you for standing with your team of editors and staff in defense of Liberty!

Like what you just read? To protect our independence, we have never accepted advertising. Nor have we ever charged a subscription fee in order to reach the largest audience possible. Our operations budget depends solely on the the generosity of readers like you. Please help us keep the timeless message of Liberty in front of grassroots Americans around the nation and make a donation today.

"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffusd and Virtue is preservd. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauchd in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders." —Samuel Adams (1775)

Who We Are

The Patriot Post is a highly-acclaimed weekday digest of news, policy and opinion written from the heartland for grassroots leaders nationwide — not the MSM's ubiquitous Beltway echo-chambers. Read More

What We Offer

On the Web

We offer solid conservative perspective on the issues of the day, including analysis, opinion columns, historic documents, humor, cartoons and more.

Via Email

Choose between our full-length Digest or our quick-hitting Snapshot to keep up with news important to Liberty. We also offer Humor on Monday and Alexander's column on Wednesday.

Email Subscriptions

Support Us

Our Mission

The Patriot Post is steadfast in our mission to extend the endowment of Liberty to the next generation by advocating for individual rights and responsibilities, supporting the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and promoting free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. We are a rock-solid conservative touchstone for the expanding ranks of grassroots Americans Patriots from all walks of life. We are not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we do not accept advertising to ensure our advocacy is not restrained by commercial influence. Our mission and operation budgets are funded entirely by the contributions from Patriots like you. Please support The Patriot Fund today!